Top Law Schools

We refer a lot to the contracts restatement in our class. Am I correct in thinking that for each case we read, there is a section in the restatement for the black letter law of that case?

I think the restatement is important to our professor. The TA told us that she memorized the restatement and did very well on the exam.

kekepania wrote:We refer a lot to the contracts restatement in our class. Am I correct in thinking that for each case we read, there is a section in the restatement for the black letter law of that case?

I think the restatement is important to our professor. The TA told us that she memorized the restatement and did very well on the exam.

Maybe not all, but probably most of the cases.

She memorized the entire Restatement on Contracts? Unless your T.A. is Mike Ross, I call BS.

I do think you have a good question, though. My casebook - when it's not just an anthology of cases - has sections before and after each chapter explaining the topic, and relies heavily on citations to the R2d. I know it's only persuasive authority unless a court holds otherwise, but is it generally safe to assume that you can apply it?

My Ks prof used pretty much only the RST and UCC. Cases weren't law, they were illustrations of RST/UCC provisions to my prof (and thus not particularly important).

Protip: stop being scared and just ask the prof or TA.

bk187 wrote:My Ks prof used pretty much only the RST and UCC. Cases weren't law, they were illustrations of RST/UCC provisions to my prof (and thus not particularly important).

Protip: stop being scared and just ask the prof or TA.

Agree. Get used to not knowing what the fuck is going on. It only gets worse when you start to practice and the people that don't ask questions are the ones that usually fuck up in a major way.

That aside, the restatements are absolutely important to learning contracts (to many professors). It seems your professor is one of them and a safe way to go is to cite to the restatement and a case that supports that position. If you do that and analyze both possible conclusions, you're in pretty good shape.

Klinklang wrote:She memorized the entire Restatement on Contracts? Unless your T.A. is Mike Ross, I call BS.

I do think you have a good question, though. My casebook - when it's not just an anthology of cases - has sections before and after each chapter explaining the topic, and relies heavily on citations to the R2d. I know it's only persuasive authority unless a court holds otherwise, but is it generally safe to assume that you can apply it?

No, not the entire restatement. We have the annotated version, and she probably only memorized the relevant ones.

So it's normal to not know what is going on at all right now?

kekepania wrote:

Klinklang wrote:She memorized the entire Restatement on Contracts? Unless your T.A. is Mike Ross, I call BS.

I do think you have a good question, though. My casebook - when it's not just an anthology of cases - has sections before and after each chapter explaining the topic, and relies heavily on citations to the R2d. I know it's only persuasive authority unless a court holds otherwise, but is it generally safe to assume that you can apply it?

No, not the entire restatement. We have the annotated version, and she probably only memorized the relevant ones.

So it's normal to not know what is going on at all right now?

Yes.

You'd either be a genius or lying if you knew what the hell is going on right now.

That's why a lot of people become TAs - because they recognize that 1L sucks, and hope they can help clear the fog a little bit. (At least, that's why I do it.) Rely on your Profs and TAs.